NostroZ:Inflatable Rhetoric: It does a reasonably good job at getting certain groups to act a certain way.

That's at least difficult to measure.And some of these groups act in a way which is problematic, to say the least.And then, there's nothing for comparison, except other religions.

Hey man, did you read above in your own quote what I wrote about comparisons?The soviet union did not have a religion. In fact, it was outlawed by the communist party.The Soviets killed millions of their own (under Stalin).The same thing occurred under Mao in China with the Great Leap forward. Millions of Chinese starved to death, as with Stalin.

For some reason, you don't see this MASS MURDER of their OWN PEOPLE by a more religious government.There's your comparison with Atheists in power. Discuss.

Did you ever stop to consider, that to the true fanatic who suspended logic, reason, and basic human morality, to prop up communism, viewed communism as their religion, the Kremlin as their church, and Lenin, Stalin and, Mao as their deities and saints? Or that the so called Atheists who ran these regimens thought of themselves as Gods among men?

xria:rikkards: Relatively Obscure: What I'm wondering, though, is what atheism puts in place of that morality and framework that religions provide.

Oh, this shiat again.

The proper answer would be "personal responsibility to society norms".

Also it is hard to see how anyone with a belief in an eternally happy afterlife for good people, and hell for bad people is really "moral" - they are just being selfish on a longer time frame.

I agree with you to a degree, at least. Anyone who believes that there is a "good" afterlife and a "bad" afterlife ought to feel some kind of concern or distress or pity at the thought that millions or billions of people are doomed to the bad one. Ideally, this should compel a believer to do everything in their power to help non-believers "understand" the need to convert so they can get the "good" afterlife.

(Let me just use "heaven" as a generic term for any desirable afterlife and "hell" as a generic term for any undesirable afterlife, to save electrons.)

Unfortunately, there are (at least) two problems with how this plays out historically (and today).

First, once you totally buy into the ideas that (A) an hour in hell is infinitely worse than an hour of the worse torture any human can inflict, and (B) it is possible, however unlikely, that you can FORCE a given person into "becoming saved," then the most brutal torture and murder can be justified in terms of "saving someone's soul" (i.e., ensuring that they will go to heaven when they die). All of the worst atrocities done in the name of Christianity (the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem witch trials, etc) all of it can be justified given those two assumptions as absolutes. And such atrocities could happen again in any society that accepts such premises as unquestionably true.

Second, if you believe that the "divine judge" (God, or whoever or whatever determines who goes to heaven and who goes to hell when they die) is infallible, you start to believe that some people DESERVE heaven and others DESERVE hell. From there, you start to think that the "unsaved" people not only deserve to go to hell when they die, but they don't really deserve all that much respect here on Earth, either.

It's funny how often this happens with Christians, especially how many different passages in the Bible specifically admonish Christians NOT to do that. ("Judge not, lest ye be judged," "Before you pluck the splinter from your brother's eye," "For all have sinned," etc.)

Biological Ali:Well, when people say things like "Christianity today is better off than Islam", they're really only talking about Christianity in North America and Europe (and to some extent South America). Christianity in Africa (places like Uganda etc.) is pretty much on par with any stereotypically bad picture of Islam in the Middle East.

So there is death penalty for apostacy in Uganda?

Or do you mean they are "on par" on the issue of gays, even though the law that included death penalty was never passed, yet is the law in many muslim coutnries?

NostroZ:Inflatable Rhetoric: For some reason, you don't see this MASS MURDER of their OWN PEOPLE by a more religious government.There's your comparison with Atheists in power. Discuss.

Really? You haven't heard about the Inquisition?

That was against the Jews and Muslims... nothing to see here.

Business as usual in Europe... move along citizen.

/In Capitalism this phenomenon was called McCarthyism... a witch-hunt by the fanatical against their perceived moral enemies.//Lets not pretend that religion has anything to do with people in power oppressing a minority group they deem dangerous.///Look up Eugene V. Debs and that he was sentenced to prison for saying that he supported the anti-war movement in WW2.

And? We can have evil people and events with or without a religious base.

dfxdeimos:When hundreds of millions Muslims believe that the punishment for leaving Islam should be death - that is a problem.When hundreds of millions Muslims believe that the punishment for adultery should be stoning - that is a problem.When hundreds of millions Muslims believe that the punishment for theft or robbery should involve whippings or cutting off the hands of the accused - that is a problem.

And these aren't punishments that are isolated to one sect, or cultural sub-group, or came out of nowhere - these are all things that are mandated by the Quran.

But I am sure that you would find a similar number of Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Hindus that would say the same thing, right? Get farking real.

Read Leviticus sometime. The Christian Bible also mandates that homosexuals and adulterers should be stoned to death, and any women who isn't a vigrin on her wedding night, and a long list of other criminals.. I'm not sure why you think Islam is necessarily worse than any other Abrahamic religion.

give me doughnuts:This is Pascal's Argument: Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming the infinite gain or loss associated with belief in God or with unbelief, a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss.

Therefore, the burden of proof is upon you sir, as you are asking others to possibly damn their eternal soul.

And here we have the crux of his argument: He's afraid.

All creatures are afraid of death, this is a basic survival instinct. Are you telling me you are not?

Are you also telling me you know for certain what will happen when you die?

Therefore, as Pascal's Argument goes, you are asking for me to NOT believe in something that has a much greater loss in not believing. Versus following the tradition of my grand-parents and passing down a rich culture. A belief in something greater than oneself.

/Not that it matters... but I do not believe in a hell as you might know it.//My religion's hell is to be so far separated from God that you are in a void, yet there is still hope of redemption.

Religion works in that it gives purpose to life outside of eating, sleeping, and farking.

Look at the two most religious and elaborate civilizations of the ancient world. The Egyptians and Greeks.

Ask yourself, what did these two polytheistic civilizations with a rich spiritual world give to civilization?

Mathematics. Astronomy. Logic. Farming. Dentistry. Sanitation. Preservation techniques. Architecture that stands to this day.dishonor your mother/father now at days... but how about building something better before tearing down what has worked.

I fail to see how religion contributed, or contributes, to Math, Astronomy, etc. I do recall Giordano Bruno being burned alive by religious leaders for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun.

You're being trolled. Hard.

I just got an email from the AFA, says the FCC is dropping the ban on "the f-word" and nudity in broadcast radio and TV. About time.

lenfromak:Lusiphur: Can you be considered an "islamaphobe" if you simply hate religion? Wouldn't that just be a religiophobe?

No, that would mean having an irrational fear of religion, or an irrational fear of islam. As an atheist, I simply think islam is as make-believe as all the others.

You might not be aware of this, but the "-phobe" suffix can mean "person who hates X" as well as "person who is afraid of X." When you call someone a homophobe, for example, you're saying that they hate homosexuality, not that they're necessarily afraid of it. Though it's certainly possible a given homophobe could be either.

Rabbitgod:For some reason, you don't see this MASS MURDER of their OWN PEOPLE by a more religious government.There's your comparison with Atheists in power. Discuss.

Did you ever stop to consider, that to the true fanatic who suspended logic, reason, and basic human morality, to prop up communism, viewed communism as their religion, the Kremlin as their church, and Lenin, Stalin and, Mao as their deities and saints? Or that the so called Atheists who ran these regimens thought of themselves as Gods among men?

Thank you my inquisitive friend!

This is precisely what I have been trying to articulate.Atheism undermines a VERY needed circuit breaker in the human condition. EGOIn these Atheist institutions the human condition was still alive and well... and the human condition is TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING... if that something is no longer God, then it becomes Man.

That man is the 'cult of personality' that often takes place when people look towards MAN instead of GOD for life's answers.Therefore, my argument that religion does more good than harm is reinforced by the examples of China/USSR where when religion was forcefully removed, a cult of personality took over and people looked towards a MAN for morality. And as history has showed us MAN is not as MERCIFUL as GOD.

This argument is stupid. The world is split into theists and atheists. Theists are made up of all the different distinct religions and all of their denominations. Atheists are also made up of many different groups and lifestyles... and you can't broad brush them as hate mongers any more than you can do that with all theists.

However, you can distinguish at least 2 groups of atheists easily: the benign atheists and the anti-theists. The hateful ones are the equivalent to the Westboro Baptist Church, and they do not represent all atheists, they are just the noisy ones who need attention like the Christian hate mongers in the news every day. Even taking the different levels of anti-theism within the Atheist community, I don't believe that any atheist really hates Islam more than any other religion.

NostroZ:Rabbitgod: For some reason, you don't see this MASS MURDER of their OWN PEOPLE by a more religious government.There's your comparison with Atheists in power. Discuss.

Did you ever stop to consider, that to the true fanatic who suspended logic, reason, and basic human morality, to prop up communism, viewed communism as their religion, the Kremlin as their church, and Lenin, Stalin and, Mao as their deities and saints? Or that the so called Atheists who ran these regimens thought of themselves as Gods among men?

Thank you my inquisitive friend!

This is precisely what I have been trying to articulate.Atheism undermines a VERY needed circuit breaker in the human condition. EGOIn these Atheist institutions the human condition was still alive and well... and the human condition is TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING... if that something is no longer God, then it becomes Man.

That man is the 'cult of personality' that often takes place when people look towards MAN instead of GOD for life's answers.Therefore, my argument that religion does more good than harm is reinforced by the examples of China/USSR where when religion was forcefully removed, a cult of personality took over and people looked towards a MAN for morality. And as history has showed us MAN is not as MERCIFUL as GOD.

Yea, MAN has created terrible diseases, such as malaria, polio, the plague, ebola, diphtheria, etc, etc. A MERCIFUL GOD would never do that. Right?

Surool:However, you can distinguish at least 2 groups of atheists easily: the benign atheists and the anti-theists. The hateful ones are the equivalent to the Westboro Baptist Church, and they do not represent all atheists, they are just the noisy ones who need attention like the Christian hate mongers in the news every day.

The only way you could make a comment like that with a straight face is if you didn't actually know very much about the Westboro Baptist Church.

NostroZ:All creatures are afraid of death, this is a basic survival instinct. Are you telling me you are not?

Are you also telling me you know for certain what will happen when you die?

Of course I am. All creatures complex enough to know fear, fear death.

As for what happens after death, I don't have a clue. No one does. But what I do know is that nothing I do in life will have any effect on whether or not there is any "afterlife", or what form it will take.

As for the rest of your post, and pretty much everything you have posted in this thred, let me quote the eminent philosopher Mr. T: That's just a bunch of jibber-jabber.

Inflatable Rhetoric:Yea, MAN has created terrible diseases, such as malaria, polio, the plague, ebola, diphtheria, etc, etc. A MERCIFUL GOD would never do that. Right?

I fear that stylistic rhetoric has obfuscated this discussion.

When I said history has shown us that MAN is less MERCIFUL than GOD, I meant the rule of men without religion versus rule with religion. As with the case of atheist governments as was the case with USSR and China. To some degree, the Mongols did not have a religion either, they were tolerant of their conquered people's religion... yet, what do you know about the Mongols... Ghangis Khan, a leader who's policy of conquest was complete and utter destruction.

My point is that religion tempers the human heart and keeps it from doing greater evil.

Sid_6.7:I'm an atheist, and I don't really have a problem with Islam. Overall, I think it's a really neat thing, but not for me. I do have a problem with anyone claiming I should live my life a certain way due to their religious beliefs. Or, rather, it would be more accurate to say that if someone takes steps to try and force me to follow their religious beliefs, then I have a problem.

Infernalist: doglover: What's the fancy word for people who like cilantro?

Douchebag?

Please, explain, how liking the taste of an herb makes someone a douchebag? I could say the same about people classifying others based upon their enjoyment of a single plant.

/potheads, for example

Geez dude! are you off your meds? Do you even see the GIANT irony in your post? You have no problem with Islam but you do have a problem with people that says you should live my life a certain way due to their religious beliefs?

WTF do you think Islam is?

...... and yes I was thinking religious people were a confuse bunch.. LOL

vactech:I could have swore the proper narrative was "Atheists liberals always give Islam (or any other religion) a free pass, and only pick on Christians"

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but in my experience protestant Christians are the worst Islam/Catholic-phobes evar. They just do their bigoted speeches on Sunday morning within the walls of their church.

I have several family members who are Protestant. Some might even be called fundamentalist. It's interesting when they talk about Islam because my internal voice, the one that would get me in trouble if I allowed it access to my mouth, keeps noting how similar their arguments against Islam are to the arguments my atheist friends make against Christianity.

You could pretty much just swap "Jesus" for "Mohammad," "Christianity" for "Islam," et cetera, and they'd be almost identical, word-for-word.

I was reminded of something I read in one of the New Atheist books (can't recall who it was, maybe Dawkins, maybe Hitchens): "The crucial difference between Christians and atheists is that Christians disbelieve N-1 religions, while atheists disbelieve N religions." I'm probably mangling the quote, but it went something like that.

NostroZ:Rabbitgod: For some reason, you don't see this MASS MURDER of their OWN PEOPLE by a more religious government.There's your comparison with Atheists in power. Discuss.

Did you ever stop to consider, that to the true fanatic who suspended logic, reason, and basic human morality, to prop up communism, viewed communism as their religion, the Kremlin as their church, and Lenin, Stalin and, Mao as their deities and saints? Or that the so called Atheists who ran these regimens thought of themselves as Gods among men?

Thank you my inquisitive friend!

This is precisely what I have been trying to articulate.Atheism undermines a VERY needed circuit breaker in the human condition. EGOIn these Atheist institutions the human condition was still alive and well... and the human condition is TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING... if that something is no longer God, then it becomes Man.

That man is the 'cult of personality' that often takes place when people look towards MAN instead of GOD for life's answers.Therefore, my argument that religion does more good than harm is reinforced by the examples of China/USSR where when religion was forcefully removed, a cult of personality took over and people looked towards a MAN for morality. And as history has showed us MAN is not as MERCIFUL as GOD.

NostroZ: Rabbitgod: For some reason, you don't see this MASS MURDER of their OWN PEOPLE by a more religious government.There's your comparison with Atheists in power. Discuss.

Did you ever stop to consider, that to the true fanatic who suspended logic, reason, and basic human morality, to prop up communism, viewed communism as their religion, the Kremlin as their church, and Lenin, Stalin and, Mao as their deities and saints? Or that the so called Atheists who ran these regimens thought of themselves as Gods among men?

Thank you my inquisitive friend!

This is precisely what I have been trying to articulate.Atheism undermines a VERY needed circuit breakerunneeded drain on the human condition. In these Atheist institutions the human condition was still alive and well... and the human condition is TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING... if that something is no longer God, then it becomes Humanity, and the species finally starts getting its collective shiat together.

That man is the 'cult of personality' that often takes place when people look towards MAN instead of GOD for life's answers.Therefore, my argument that religion does more good than harm is reinforced by the examples of China/USSR where when religion was forcefully removed, a cult of personality took over and people looked towards a MAN for morality. And as history has showed us MAN is not as MERCIFUL as GOD. More jibber-jabber

give me doughnuts:what I do know is that nothing I do in life will have any effect on whether or not there is any "afterlife", or what form it will take.

I am envious of your certainty.

I have a hard time believing that billions of people on this planet are wrong and I am right. Since every religion is based on a soul that is affected by this life's events, you are in a VERY minority view. But I respect your life's choice and hopefully when the day comes to both of us, then we will know who is RIGHT for sure.

I'd rather hedge my bets and be a good person, as proscribed by all the faiths of the world.

If I may ask a hypothetical questions then...You come upon a burning building and there is a young girl trapped inside. You are the only one around who can help. Do you help the girl inside and why?

Uncle Tractor:HindiDiscoMonster: Seriously, I agree.... I just love it when Jesus said "verily I say unto thee, if thy neighbor sucks, thou shalt kill him" or when he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone... that's right biatches that is me..." then whacked that ho... or better, when he said "Turn the other cheek, cause i'm gonna pimp slap that one too!" Classic... oh wait, I mean the opposite of that,

How about when Jesus said that apostates were to be burned on the fire? Does that count?

[i560.photobucket.com image 512x668]

Are you saying that because you think some Farkers are stupid enough to believe the Jesus is actually advocating burning people in that passage, or because you're stupid enough to believe that?

HotWingConspiracy:Science is still entirely passive, it makes no demands or prescriptions for violence.

So when certain scientists call on governments to impose taxes, mandates, and controls to reduce CO2 emissions, that's not science. I bring this up because too many people say things like, "Science says we need carbon taxes, etc."

IlGreven:propasaurus: That's fascinating. Do tell me how much you Christians love Islam.

It usually goes like this:

Atheist says something critical against Christianity.Christians say "Well, you don't have the guts to say those things against the ebil Muslims."Atheist then says something critical against Islam.Christians say "ZOMG ISLAMOPHOBE!"

IlGreven:There is a real threat to Atheism, but it's not any of these three: It's this dumbass Atheism+ movement that requires the shrill type of misandrist feminism that people like Adria Richards thrive off of, and uses tactics most atheists left the church to get away from to ensure "purity". Just say no to Pope PZ Myers and High Priestess Rebecca Watson. I'd rather be lumped in with "Islamophobes" like Dawkins and Harris.

Yes, indeed, the biggest problem with atheism is that it's TOO feminist.

Scythed:Atheism isillegal in most of the Muslim world. Apostasy is punishable by imprisonment or death. The Quran and Hadith support this.

Asking why Atheists are Islamophobic is like asking why Jews are Naziphobic.

and yet here we are 500 + post later arguing why a certain author is a douche for clinging to true atheistic beliefs.. apparently even atheists are willing to forgo their most fundamental 'beliefs' for the sake of political correctness these daysl.

Why would YOU want to be tolerant of a group of folks whose core beliefs are that you and your like minded folks are subhuman and should be put to death in the most horrific of ways?

jigger:HotWingConspiracy: Science is still entirely passive, it makes no demands or prescriptions for violence.

So when certain scientists call on governments to impose taxes, mandates, and controls to reduce CO2 emissions, that's not science. I bring this up because too many people say things like, "Science says we need carbon taxes, etc."

I'm going to do you a favour and pretend you didn't post that. Others in the thread might not be as generous, though.

HindiDiscoMonster:imfallen_angel: PunGent: If someone's screwed-up interpretation of their religion tells them to kill you, isn't shooting them in self-defense ethical?

Do unto others, before they do unto you...

What most fail to understand that it's not "religion" that's truly bad, it's the people and their actions.

If those people didn't have religion to hide behind, they'd use whatever else that would be convenient, politics, monarchies/patriarchies, medicine, schools/teacher position, etc. just anything that place them in some sort of power over others.

One could use a spoon to kill someone... doesn't mean the spoon is evil. It's what one does with it.

NostroZ:Rabbitgod: For some reason, you don't see this MASS MURDER of their OWN PEOPLE by a more religious government.There's your comparison with Atheists in power. Discuss.

Did you ever stop to consider, that to the true fanatic who suspended logic, reason, and basic human morality, to prop up communism, viewed communism as their religion, the Kremlin as their church, and Lenin, Stalin and, Mao as their deities and saints? Or that the so called Atheists who ran these regimens thought of themselves as Gods among men?

Thank you my inquisitive friend!

This is precisely what I have been trying to articulate.Atheism undermines a VERY needed circuit breaker in the human condition. EGOIn these Atheist institutions the human condition was still alive and well... and the human condition is TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING... if that something is no longer God, then it becomes Man.

That man is the 'cult of personality' that often takes place when people look towards MAN instead of GOD for life's answers.Therefore, my argument that religion does more good than harm is reinforced by the examples of China/USSR where when religion was forcefully removed, a cult of personality took over and people looked towards a MAN for morality. And as history has showed us MAN is not as MERCIFUL as GOD.

give me doughnuts:these Atheist institutions the human condition was still alive and well... and the human condition is TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING... if that something is no longer God, then it becomes Humanity, and the species finally starts getting its collective shiat together.

My dear Farker, I do not feel we are having a discussion anymore and I am done posting on this topic.

You are demanding that humans no longer believe in a God, even though it is in our nature to believe. Furthermore, when I have brought up examples of governments that have purposefully eradicated religion only to have greater immorality follow, you have ignored the topic multiple times.

Now you are once again planting your feet high upon your soap-box to shout down religion/God, ignoring the millions of people killed under than same slogan. I do not wish to be spoken at by you sir.

It has become clear that we are not having a conversation any longer, but you continue to repeat the dogma of "God=bad" despite the numerous examples of Man=Bad, God=Tempering force.

I will leave you to your dogmatic belief Mr.Doughnuts so that you may repeat your articles of faith without anyone telling you otherwise (with examples of USSR, China, Mongol, etc.)

Biological Ali:Surool: However, you can distinguish at least 2 groups of atheists easily: the benign atheists and the anti-theists. The hateful ones are the equivalent to the Westboro Baptist Church, and they do not represent all atheists, they are just the noisy ones who need attention like the Christian hate mongers in the news every day.

The only way you could make a comment like that with a straight face is if you didn't actually know very much about the Westboro Baptist Church.

The only way you could make a comment like that with a straight face is if you didn't actually know very much about how the Westboro Baptist Church is viewed by most people.

Biological Ali:jigger: HotWingConspiracy: Science is still entirely passive, it makes no demands or prescriptions for violence.

So when certain scientists call on governments to impose taxes, mandates, and controls to reduce CO2 emissions, that's not science. I bring this up because too many people say things like, "Science says we need carbon taxes, etc."

I'm going to do you a favour and pretend you didn't post that. Others in the thread might not be as generous, though.

So, no rebuttal then?

What's your position? Science is passive and descriptive or active and prescriptive?

jigger:Biological Ali: jigger: HotWingConspiracy: Science is still entirely passive, it makes no demands or prescriptions for violence.

So when certain scientists call on governments to impose taxes, mandates, and controls to reduce CO2 emissions, that's not science. I bring this up because too many people say things like, "Science says we need carbon taxes, etc."

I'm going to do you a favour and pretend you didn't post that. Others in the thread might not be as generous, though.

So, no rebuttal then?

What's your position? Science is passive and descriptive or active and prescriptive?

Biological Ali:jigger: Biological Ali: jigger: HotWingConspiracy: Science is still entirely passive, it makes no demands or prescriptions for violence.

So when certain scientists call on governments to impose taxes, mandates, and controls to reduce CO2 emissions, that's not science. I bring this up because too many people say things like, "Science says we need carbon taxes, etc."

I'm going to do you a favour and pretend you didn't post that. Others in the thread might not be as generous, though.

So, no rebuttal then?

What's your position? Science is passive and descriptive or active and prescriptive?

NostroZ:give me doughnuts: what I do know is that nothing I do in life will have any effect on whether or not there is any "afterlife", or what form it will take.

I am envious of your certainty.

I have a hard time believing that billions of people on this planet are wrong and I am right. (

argumentum ad populum)Since every religion is based on a soul that is affected by this life's events, you are in a VERY minority view. But I respect your life's choice and hopefully when the day comes to both of us, then we will know who is RIGHT for sure.

I'd rather hedge my bets and be a good person, as proscribed by all the faiths of the world. (Pascals Wager)

You've succumbed to some common pitfalls there. Look those terms up and learn why they are flawed arguments.

If I may ask a hypothetical questions then...You come upon a burning building and there is a young girl trapped inside. You are the only one around who can help. Do you help the girl inside and why?

I risk my life to save the girl as I consider that the moral course of action. Were there professionals around to do the job, I'd let them as their chances of success would likely be far greater than mine.

Morality being demonstrably subjective, and not demonstrably objective.

Voiceofreason01:so religion is any group or organization or person or ideology that you disagree with or don't like?

No. Religion is similar to fanaticism. A football tough, willing to mercilessly beat someone for the jersey they wear, is a religious fanatic, by definition.

religion |riˈlijən|nounthe belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion.• a particular system of faith and worship: the world's great religions.• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance: consumerism is the new religion.

Most religious people aren't really all that interested in a relationship with god(the divine, spirituality, et al). I don't see faith in god as a requirement for morality, nor for religious bent.

Biological Ali:Well, when people say things like "Christianity today is better off than Islam", they're really only talking about Christianity in North America and Europe (and to some extent South America). Christianity in Africa (places like Uganda etc.) is pretty much on par with any stereotypically bad picture of Islam in the Middle East.

Are you saying that when the secular authority is sovereign over religious authority, then religion becomes nice?

Marine1:ciberido: RobSeace: ciberido: Perhaps someone who's actually been to an atheist convention would care to comment on how many people there were nonwhite or female?

We have conventions now??

The national convention in the USA was in March and the global convention is in Australia in five days. Also, American Atheists was founded in 1963 and has a board of directors.

So it's like church, but with none of the redemption or awesome food afterwards and all of the effort in getting somewhere when you just want to sleep.

There's nothing particularly sinister or dumb about it. It's human nature to want to associate with people with whom you have something in common, be it politics, or a hobby, or a religious belief, or a lack of a religious belief.

The difference between "movement atheism" and just plain ol' atheism is that "movement atheists" have a sociopolitical agenda: to make the world more friendly to atheists (basically freedom of religion type stuff) and to persuade non-atheists that they should give atheism a try. Both of these are pretty logical goals to espouse once you accept the idea that atheism is at least as good as religion, if not better. And once you have enough people with a common agenda, then you need organizations, websites, conventions, books, blogs, etc.

And, of course, you can expect a lot of the time and energy to be spent debating what exactly the common agenda actually is.

In this regard, one could posit that movement atheism is much like any other life stance.

Oh. You're doing that thing where you take a terms with specific, commonly-understood meanings and substitute them with meanings that are so broad as to be meaningless in order to defend some silly equivocation.